It’s really weird today the way that the traditional communist/socialist nations, Russia and China, are reviled in the media. But meanwhile, our largest corporations are making billions of dollars doing commerce with them. And the U.S. was becoming more socialist every day, at least under the previous federal administration.

“How do you leave the economic aspect out of something that is as much economics as it is politics, if not more?”
Because it was far more than just economics.One could virtually state that economics was the early twentieth century Means to the worse Ends. They were out to repudiate all previous held norms and Values
If this is too difficult, let us put it thus they a combo of pre-Marxist Jacobinism and[ as some eg Jordan Peterson terms them] “postmodern neo marxism”

One ostensible offical difference between communism and present Left was the Marxist scoffing at law,and the policy of Power justify every means. Though the difference is really on the surface rather than factual. They have figured out how to play the System better

You left out why I was comparing the two.
Those three are promoting Antisemitisim. It’s well known that Hilter YSM, promoted that Communism was created by Jews.
Communism under Stalin was very Anti-semitic.
From W. Churchill:
“Bolshevism] among the Jews is nothing new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing”

In the US, being a Facist is very looked down upon, as witnessed in Charlottsville.
While the liberal antisemites are gaining more publicity everday!
Under the guise of promoting peace in the Middle East – they have resorted to blatant Anti-Semitism!

Ubi, that sounds like fascism. Communism and socialism believe that the means of production should be in the hands of the workers. Marx, in fact, envisaged the state “withering away”. there are also variations and hybrids. For example, libertarian socialism calls for businesses to be workers’ cooperatives free of state interference. Classical liberalism (today’s libertarianism) is socially liberal while believing in laissez-faire economics. The common thread is individual rights as expressed in the non-aggression principle. What today is called liberalism is really akin to corporatism in that it views rights and responsibilities as accruing to groups rather than individuals.

“offering us a stimulating analysis of May 1968 in France, Daniel Mahoney ..He recognizes that those actors who participated most influentially in “the events” were not of the same creed, but diversely Trotskyites, Maoists, aficionados of Che [Guevara], and anarchists..
I was a careful observer of sit-ins and building takeovers at my own University of Pennsylvania.. A small number of self-aware activists used specific issues to draw in a much larger number of students who had few deep political commitments. In the crucible of all-night plenary sessions in occupied buildings, however, the insiders worked their alchemy upon the far, far larger number. Votes at 9 p.m. to place more students on university decision-making committees became, by 2 a.m., votes to dismantle American capitalism in which almost all of them had wanted to prosper only a few hours before.. As in France, a goodly number of those who were truly absorbed by the politics and cultural politics went into academic life or into journalism, where they would later wield an influence far beyond their actual numbers.

Mahoney rightly argues, of course, the significant consequences of whatever changed in 1968 were less political in any immediate sense than they were cultural and attitudinal. Indeed, the spirit of May ’68 expressed its rejection of bourgeois life and values in a slogan ubiquitous at that time: “Métro, boulot, dodo.” This slogan (so contemptuous in its childlike rhyme and slang) means subway (that is, commuting to one’s job), work, sleep. That was the dreariness and human destitution of our condition under liberal capitalism. The phrase was derived from a line in a 1951 poem by Pierre Béarn, “Couleurs d’Usine.” Béarn, perhaps describing his father’s life in a factory, ended his poem this way (translation mine):
Au déboulé garçon pointe ton numéro
Pour gagner ainsi le salaire
D’un morne jour utilitaire
Métro, boulot, bistro, mégots, dodo, zéro
(Rush in boy, punch your time card
In order to earn the salary
Of a dismal utilitarian day
Metro, work, bistro, cigarette butts, sleep, zero.)

Well it isnt.
It is a direct quote from Friedricjh Engels the co-author of the communist manifesto. In other words the father of communism (or cofather with Marx). ( By nation he means people not the governement)

Healt
“You left out why I was comparing the two.”
I have no idea what comparison you are making without you telling us there is no way to know. IF your comparison is the last 3 letters of the word then yes they are exactly the same.

I dont understand the rest of your post.
You seem to be saying that Communism is antisemitic. Though you provide views of hitler and churchill that communism is in fact Jewish (and its opponents antisemitic?)

“Classical liberalism (today’s libertarianism) is socially liberal while believing in laissez-faire economics. ”
False
Adam Smith and the majority of later Classical Liberals were High minded and they weren’t libertarian nor socially liberal
There were though some exceptions such as John Stuart Mill

‘Tis more blurry than thus. Engels was certainly of the opinion that Nations were Bourgeoisie and therefore only an intermediate stage, towards their soon abolition and the coming brotherhood of all humanity

Avi
“are you a commentator on Engels? ”
nope but luckily my parents had the foresight to raise me speaking yiddish. One of the many plusses is I feel comfortable readigng German (though not speaking)
The quote is from Engels’ Principles of communism or in German Grundsätze des Kommunismus

Ubiq -“You seem to be saying that Communism is antisemitic. Though you provide views of hitler and churchill that communism is in fact Jewish ”

That’s exactly what I’m saying! That those liberal jews – i.e. Sanders & those newspapers owned by Jews, are the Antisemitic Liberals. They are eqivalent to Stalin’s Communism, which was very antisemitic!

Ubi, I once read an article by someone who recalled that her German professor reprimanded her for her Yiddishisms. Assuming that the German word “nation” has the same as the English meaning (and English and German are also related) it does not mean “state” but is similar to the Hebrew word עם. This is contrary to fascism where control (although not nominal ownership) is in the hands of the state. Thus the Nazi party was correctly called National Socialist (and is still called that in Germany).

Health, actually there is a common thread between various movements that have attracted Jews. All seek tikkun olam. One can throw in Ayn Rand (born Alissa Rosenbaum), Paul Samuelson, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman. In fact, the argument between Trotsky and Stalin ym”s was that the former wanted to foment world revolution and the latter wanted to concentrate on Russia and its sphere of influence. A Jew can never get away from his Jewish destiny although he can be totally non-observant. Rav Soloveichik referred to this dichotomy as “two covenants” – the Berit ben haBeitarim and Berit Chorev.

What Health presumably is saying is while Nazis and equivalents are/were open[with erratic leeway] & outright on what they espouse,the so called Left espouse and propound on brotherhood- or presently sisterhood, of humanity.However in practice they will be just as virulent and ruthless, and the Ends are little more than semantics

Ubi, the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics defines fascism as socialism with a capitalist veneer. That is to say, nominal ownership along with profits is in private hands but the government makes the decisions.

Time, one can say that she was off-track but she intended for tikkun olam. Similarly, the ACLU, with if also often off-track was founded by a Jew (Arthur Garfield Hays). Aryeh Neier , who is observant, led ion from 70-78 when he founded Helsinki Watch, later renamed Human Rights Watch.

“The only liberty that is valuable is a liberty connected with order; that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them. It inheres in good and steady government, as in its substance and vital principle.”

Time, the author of that quote, Edmund Burke, was not a classical liberal but a conservative who believed that societies must maintain their traditions and that change should be evolutionary (see his disciple Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles /em>. Classical liberals believe that government should be limited to preventing force and fraud (a.k.a. the “night watchman state”). See also the “non-aggression principle”. For further reading see Mill, On Liberty and Hayek The Constitution of Liberty.

Avi,
Burke wrote that in 1774 when he was a leading young Enlightenment writer in Britain
He was in his writings and his parliamentary votes invariably on the Whig side of things.
This was prior to his later becomig one of the leading articulators of conservatives
[or for some, reactionary] After the start of the French Revolution

As T Jefferson quipped greater “than the Revolution in France,is the revolution in Mr.Burke”

The 18th Century Whigs were not classical liberals at all. While they supported individual freedom it was only because they saw it as an English tradition (and thus viewed voting as a privilege rather than a right) rather than Natural Law. This was echoed in the original demand of the Americans for their rights as Englishman, implying that Frenchmen, for example, had no rights.

This all fine Theory
Who should you define as a Classical liberal in the world of Politik
Asquith? Who his [most of ] own party stage a coup and threw out due to his inability to do the job?
Gladstone?

“My objection to Liberalism is this that it is the introduction into ..business of life of the highest kind namely, politics of philosophical ideas instead of political principles”

But that was of identical origin as:
” difference between a misfortune and a calamity is this: If Gladstone fell into the Thames, it would be a misfortune. But if someone dragged him out .. that would be a calamity”

J.S. Mill who wrote “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community [but explicitly not what he considered to be a barbaric community], against his will, is to prevent harm to others” . Friedrich Hayek is another example. Another is Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia ).

As for British political humor, when Lady Astor told Churchill that if he were her husband she would poison his tea he replied that if she were his wife he would drink it. When MP Bessie Braddock MP said “Winston, you are drunk, and what’s more you are disgustingly drunk.” he replied “Bessie, my dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly.” The Americans are also not slouches. Sam Houston said about an opponent “He has all the characteristics of a dog save loyalty”.

Churchill,was he a Liberal? He claimed himself to be, at least in some of his political incarnations?
He was was one of most ardent proponents of Free Trade,even after others retreated from it
What about the Cliveden Set? They also called themselves Liberal ,pro fascist as they were.

In what sense was Mill an outlier? His ideas informed 19th Century America and Britain. He is still considered one of the foremost modern political philosophers.

Lady Astor denied that the Clivedon Set was pro-fascist (although she was very antisemitic) and in fact, their names were in the Black Book of those to be arrested after a Nazi invasion of Britain.

Lincoln was not a liberal. If he was he would have let the South secede. He would have even let slavery continue if he thought that both it and the Union could be preserved. He was a conservative in the sense that he believed that law and order are the highest values.